First letter of Oz to the NG

Bloxy's Bloxy's at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 7 01:37:35 EST 1999


In article <37ABB321.CA86904A at mediaone.net>, robert <rlmunoz at mediaone.net> wrote:
>Hi there Malcom,

>I missed the basis for your particular response.
>I'm responding perhaps out of context to the last paragraph.

>Malcolm McMahon wrote:

>> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 02:08:17 GMT, Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) wrote:

>> >This is not "instability". This is freedom.
>> >Undescriptability, may be, but instability?
>> >Well, the "instability" is a driving force.
>> >This is where intelligence kicks in,
>> >as it forever seeks to go out of the limits of known.

>> When you think about the evolutionary history of inteligence the
>> homostasis point of view seems more consistent. Our inteligence seems to
>> have evolved at the end of the last ice-age when the climate was
>> extremely variable. Evolution doesn't hand out inteligence with much
>> enthusiam. Inteligence requires learning and learning is a dangerous
>> business. It takes time. In our case brainsize has become a nightmare
>> problem as far as procreation is concerned.

>> It makes sense that inteligence evolved essentially as a coping
>> strategy. It gives us the capacity to change our behaviour to fit
>> conditions that change much faster than the evolution of instinct could
>> possibly keep up with.

>> >Freedom, by DEFINITION, is outside of ALL dictates.
>> >Dictates are for the crowds to organize in groups
>> >and follow the party line of fasion
>> >to be ultimately exploited by the fat cat.

>> Freedom the (relative) absence of externally imposed restraints. This is
>> not really the issue here, I think. The issue is about motivation. What
>> makes you decide what you _want_ to do.

>My opinion:

>Motivation, motive, suggests or is the reason if you will, for doing.

But what IS "motivation"?

>Motives are driven by goals, needs and wants.

And something else, you don't even mention.

>Motivation also requires an action or no action, which is still an action.
>Motives are good and bad.

No way, hosey.
This is a lie.

Here, fer yer royal refreshment.

Bio-robot:
Biological entity,
programmed to behave according to a limited set of instructions,
based in morality ["good" and "bad"] definitions,
created by the priest,
to manipulate you fear and guilt,
in order to collect a sin tax.

How's that?

You like?

> What makes you decide what you want to do
>is the same thing that motivates you in the first instance: a need or  a
>want.

No way, hosey.
It is eternal yearning for fulfillment.
For clarity of who you are
and where does your energy craves to burst itself into.

You'll go in circles in no time,
trying to explain "a need" or "want".

By the way, is there any difference between those?

>The action , or response associated with the motive is almost entirely
>dependent
>on the degree or urgency of the need or want.

Fine, the degree of urgency YOU bring into it.
Yes, it is a degree of intensity.
And there are no limits on that scale
in the domain of multi-dimensional reality.

You can go mellow, or you can go hot,
if you prefer.
That does not matter.
"Different strokes
for different folks".

And NONE of it is either "good" or "bad".
All of it is just an infinite set of scales
for you to experience your essence in.
Kinda super-rich lab with unlimited abilities.
Yes, there are intrinsic limitations on physical domain,
but that does not limit your entity.
It is just a different focus,
corresponding to different state of "maturity",
which, by the way,
has nothing to do with age, education, or any other kind
of superiority.

It is simply your readiness
and the ability to see
beyond the level of obscene giant sucking machine.

>My questions:

>Who can explain motivation beyond maslow's hierarchy of needs?

YOU!

Why can not YOU explain motivation?
And why EXPLAIN only?
Why not listen to your own urges,
knocking from within,
COMPELLING you to do things?

It is all there.
Perfectly functioning.
Once you can see it within,
as it is ETERNALLY available,
who knows,
may be the whole kwestion will just fade away?

>The question really is, why self actualization occurs at all?

Because you wish to learn
THAT WHICH IS.

Because ...
NOTHING EVER SATISFIES otherwise.

Not technically possible.

>Oz



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list